taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (10/19/86)
While I appreciate the motivations that Erik talks about in reference to the posting of the FidoNet newsletter, I strongly believe that the appropriate distribution mechanism for this sort of thing is a MAILING LIST, suitably advertised on the net. It is *NOT* appropriate, I feel, to distribute this via Usenet (not to mention the groups selected for cross-posting). If the demand reaches sufficient levels (200+) then perhaps we can all discuss making it a new newsgroup, or a part of another group, but in the meantime I'd like to see the postings stop. -- Dave Taylor
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (10/19/86)
In article <768@hplabsc.UUCP>, taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: > appropriate distribution mechanism for this sort of thing is a MAILING LIST, > suitably advertised on the net. It is *NOT* appropriate, I feel, to > distribute this via Usenet (not to mention the groups selected for > cross-posting). > > If the demand reaches sufficient levels (200+) then perhaps we can discuss > making it a newsgroup, or a part of another group, but in the meantime I'd > like to see the postings stop. while I agree with Dave that this group is not the right place to continue posting it I find the requirement for 200 votes a bit unreasonable. I do not recall that it EVER took anything like this number to establish ANY of the groups that I know of. However, it may well be the time to start such a requirement (but then let's do it for ALL existing groups). In general, I'd like to see new groups be able to get some exposure before deciding if they should be news or mail-groups. I assume here, that many of us do scan a lot of news-groups (especially new ones) occasionally, simply to form an opinion and get an idea what it's all about, where we'd *NEVER* be even tempted to subscribe to it as a mail-group and, therefore, never get a chance to find out what we are missing. The case in question seems to me to be the perfect case for mod.mag or a sub-group thereof. The volume certainly seems negligable and the contents is after all a (moderated?) newsletter, with volume and issue numbers - the works (I don't know about the 'advertising' though; I'd want to see a few more issues before I form a definite opinion) I am not disinclined to create a net-wide concensus to require certain minimum readership across a minimum number of sites which should be required for distribution, but let's do this systematically and not apply this to new groups only, but also to existing ones. Otherwise we create the well known situation where the establishment makes the rules in a way that will keep new-comers (and potential competitors for resources) out in the cold. Given that this net is about information, I'd like to see information made available to as many as possible as conveniently as possible and to avoid the situation where new ideas and data is prevented from spreading and thus the "critical mass" of interested people can never come together to "justify" a news-group. Maybe, we should create a priority-list of interest-areas which we'd like to carry information about on this net. I'd expect that anything having to do with computers and electronic communications should be rather high on the list and require fewer readers to justify distribution as a news-group, than, for example, groups dealing with the occult, religion, sports.... (whatever, insert your own favorite hit-list here). ---Werner "the header should show a mail-path to my IN-box..."
zeta@runx.OZ (Nick Andrew) (10/20/86)
[]
I too am glad the Fido newsletter is coming via Usenet - since in
Australia the usual distribution [ie: Fidonet] has been delayed.
Creation of a new newsgroup is only warranted if there will be
other discussion as well as the newsletter - which after all is a
rare occurrence compared to discussion mail.
You can find me at....
ACSnet: zeta@runx.oz
UUCP: ...!{seismo,hplabs,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!runx.oz!zeta
Fidonet: Nick Andrew@[155/222] (Zeta), [155/213] (Sentry)
Zeta: Sysop@zeta, (02) 627-4177, Zeta Rtrs, CCITT V21.
Mail: P.O Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765 Australia.booth@vax135.UUCP (David Booth) (10/20/86)
I vote for keeping Fidonet newsletters on the net -- they are relevant to electronic mail and BBOARD systems, and it is good to know about the progress of such systems. I don't particularly care if a new newsgroup is created for them, but I don't see any substantial justification for it, since the newsletters are only posted once a week. That certainly does not seem like an unwieldly amount traffic for uninterested persons to ignore. David Booth
don@opal.berkeley.edu (Don Curry) (10/20/86)
Okay! What IS FidoNET? I can't vote for or against it without some knowledge
of what it is I'm voting for/against.
don@opal.berkeley.edu
Don Curry
Computer Facilities & Communications,
University of California,
Berkeley CA 94720 (415) 642-0587
"Dh' aindeoin co theireadh e!"plocher@puff.wisc.edu (John Plocher) (10/22/86)
In article <1484@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Don Curry writes: >Okay! What IS FidoNET? I can't vote for or against it without some knowledge >of what it is I'm voting for/against. FidoNet (tm) is a collection of PCs which run a Buletin Board System (BBS) called Fido (tm). Fido is a typical BBS system for micros in that it allows entry of messages (public and private) as well as upload/download of files. It has one very important difference from most PC BBSs in that ALL systems running the Fido software can automatically communicate with each other. (A lot like usenet, but significantly different - see below) This networking is done over normal voice grade phone lines, with the originator paying the phone bills. Users can send mail to users on any other Fido BBS in the world, with delivery overnight. Messages can also be sent to anyone on Usenet, again, see below. Currently, FidoNet (the name for the global network of Fidos) consists of over 1000 systems in USA, Canada, England, Holland, (other European contries too) Australia, Indonesia... FidoNet is organized as a structured blob :-) Anyone CAN talk to anyone else, but default routing channels messages through hosts or hubs. Each week a central site sends out a nodelist to hubs and regions who then send it to all the leaf nodes. This nodelist is used for the automatic routing and as an on-line "area code" directory. Also published once a week by another site is the FidoNews newsletter. This moderated newsletter is driven by the members of FidoNet, and is a great source of info to the Sysops and users involved with FidoNet. Technical description of FidoNet: Topology: other hubs <------+---------------+-----------------+----------> other hubs | | | Net 132 Hub Region 2 Hub Net 121 Hub (Node 0) (Node 0) (Node 0) | | | -------------- node 8 --------------- / | \ / | \ Node 1 node 2 node 101 node 1 node 7 node 90 A user on Net 121 Node 1 can send a message to another person on Net 132 Node 101; the message will be routed as follows: 121/1 --> 121/0 --> 132/0 --> 132/101 This is done because the hubs can usually send messages for less cost than the nodes can (After hours use of WATS lines...). Usually a 'net' is similar in concept to the telco's area code. A hub usually is a local phone call away from its nodes; Nodes which are isolated are placed in regions instead of nets. This is an arbitrary naming convention, not a different class of <anything>. If 121/1 wanted to send a file (as opposed to a message) to 132/101, the call would be placed directly between 121/1 and 132/101 to avoid saturating the hubs. Also, the Prime Directive of FidoNet is that the person who incures costs should pay for them. Thus Node 121/1 pays to send the file, not the hub, 121/0! Implementation: The Fido Software is written by Tom Jennings, and (as of version 11), is avaliable to non-commercial sites for FREE. Commercial use requires a $100 registration licencing fee. It runs on IBM/clone PC's, DEC Rainbows, Sanyo PC's, Victor 9000s, CompuPro S-100 machines... ie: MS-DOS boxes. There is a large documentation package avaliable (500+ pages), including setup manual, Sysop manual, and user manual. Also, there are help nodes on the net, and IFNA, the International FidoNet Association can help old and new BBSs out. The comunications at the networking level are crude - a combination of XMODEM and Telink (Modem7-Batch) file transfer protocols with verification preambles at connect time. (are you a user or another Fido?...) The routing is done with the above mentioned static routing tables, updated weekly. With the exception of the nodelist preperation, there is NO central node in the network - it really is an informal grouping of very independent machines. Nodes behave as they wish, since they pay their phone bills. Hubs are there to make organizational sense out of the shear number of nodes; country codes are coming soon because of the fast growth of FidoNet overseas. There is a UUCP <--> FidoNet gateway maintained by Bob Hartman at vaxine; mail can be sent to Fido systems with the UUCP address: {decvax,ihnp4}!encore!vaxine!spark!FIDO-NET-NUMBER!FIDO-NODE-NUMBER!FIDO-USER where FIDO-NET-NUMBER is the identifier of the sub-net within FidoNet the desired node resides in, FIDO-NODE-NUMBER is the local node number, and FIDO-USER is the name of the user you wish to talk to. Bob's address would be: decvax!encore!vaxine!spark!132!101!Bob_Hartman Mine would be: decvax!encore!vaxine!spark!121!0!John_Plocher -- "Never trust an idea you get sitting down" - Nietzche ------------ {harvard,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!uwhsms!plocher (work) John Plocher {harvard,seismo}!uwvax!puff!plocher (school) ------------ decvax!encore!vaxine!spark!121!0!John_Plocher (FidoNet)
amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (10/22/86)
In article <768@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >If the demand reaches sufficient levels (200+) then perhaps we can all discuss >making it a new newsgroup, or a part of another group, but in the meantime I'd >like to see the postings stop. Hooray for that! See what happens: Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /dev/ra0e 26611 21683 2266 91% /NEWS -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel (01-972) 52-522261 34.49'E 32.10'N
pozar@well.UUCP (Tim Pozar) (10/22/86)
BERKELEY.EDU> <258@puff.wisc.edu>
Sender:
Reply-To: pozar@well.UUCP (Tim Pozar)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA
Keywords: Fido FidoNet
Thank you John. You were much quicker and elaborate than I would have
been.
Tim Pozar
______________________________
| |
| UUCP: ihp4!hplabs!well!pozar |
| Fido: 125/406 Sysop |
|______________________________| tla@kaiser.UUCP (T Anderson) (10/22/86)
I find the FidoNET Newsletter very interesting. I vote it be allowed somewhere. I don't feel strongly about where. -- Terry Anderson AT&T Bell Laboratories Warren, NJ
randy@oresoft.UUCP (10/23/86)
FidoNet is similar to Usenet, but runs on PClones. The protocol is documented, and non-PC clones are in the works. An extended version of the protocol supports file requests etc. There are some 1,200 nodes around the old ball, and many in private corporations (AT&T, GTE, Natl Parks, ...). It started with Tom Jennings doing a PC bulletin board that could call other versions of itself. It's been around 3-4 years, but I really don't know. The newsgroup idea hit FidoNet only last February, so it is nowhere near the advanced stages of flaming and technology of Usenet, but it's coming on strong, especially the flames.
pozar@well.UUCP (Tim Pozar) (10/24/86)
In article <370@instable.UUCP> amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: >In article <768@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >>If the demand reaches sufficient levels (200+) then perhaps we can all discu ss >>making it a new newsgroup, or a part of another group, but in the meantime I 'd >>like to see the postings stop. > >Hooray for that! See what happens: >Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on >/dev/ra0e 26611 21683 2266 91% /NEWS >-- > Amos Shapir > >National Semiconductor (Israel) Are you saying a 48K file is going to break your system?. Even if you get both net.mail and net.news, thats 96K. I can understand some of the other arguments, by not a restriction of disk space. If you are going to receive mail, and/or news groups, and a backlog of mail, or some moderate posting comes along, your dead. I would think a better rational to this problem would be getting some more disk space or unsuscribing from a couple of news groups, or (temporarily) clean out some dead wood. I'm not trying to FLAME. I'm just bewildered that this point is being used for an argument to stop the posting of the FidoNews. As stated before, I can understand an argument like, "Not applicable" (although I don't agree), or wrong format (msg vs. mag) (a point that can be debated.) Fido is a network of 1000+ nodes that are publicly listed and many more that are private. I think that, because of the size, and how well Fido works, we (the USENET community) should have access to information concerning Fido. A more pesimistic view, was the one stated by Erik Fair. In it he said that Fido is increasing in size at a meteoric rate. He seems to feel that Fido will crash just as hard, and he is interested in seeing the hows and whys in order to avoid such a catastrophe for these nets. Those who restrict the flow of information will be damned from ignorance. Boy, I feel like Dr. Gene Scott. Whew! Tim Pozar ______________________________ | | | UUCP: ihp4!hplabs!well!pozar | | Fido: 125/406 Sysop | |______________________________|
marr@yale.UUCP (Leon Marr) (10/25/86)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: In article <25@oresoft.UUCP> randy@oresoft.UUCP (Randy Bush) writes: >FidoNet is similar to Usenet, but runs on PClones. The protocol is documented, >and non-PC clones are in the works. An extended version of the protocol >supports file requests etc. There are some 1,200 nodes around the old ball, >and many in private corporations (AT&T, GTE, Natl Parks, ...). Is anyone doing anything like this for Macs? I don't remember seeing anything in mod.mac. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Leon Marr
lenoil@apple.UUCP (10/25/86)
In article <1638@vax135.UUCP> booth@vax135.UUCP (David Booth) writes: >I don't particularly care if a new newsgroup >is created for them, but I don't see any substantial justification for >it, since the newsletters are only posted once a week. That certainly >does not seem like an unwieldly amount traffic for uninterested persons >to ignore. You are forgetting the converse argument. I want to read the Fidonet newsletter. I do NOT want to read net.news. I would like a separate newsgroup so that I can ignore the unwieldy amount of traffic that net.news generates. No flames, please. I'm not a news administrator. So sue me. -Robert Lenoil
amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (10/26/86)
In article <1973@well.UUCP> pozar@well.UUCP (Tim Pozar) writes: >... I would think a better rational to this problem would be >getting some more disk space or unsuscribing from a couple of news groups, or ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >(temporarily) clean out some dead wood. I'm not trying to FLAME. I'm just >bewildered that this point is being used for an argument to stop the posting >of the FidoNews. ... The point was: stop posting it here, and give them their own newsgroup so I can unsubscribe. -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel (01-972) 52-522261 34.49'E 32.10'N
kimcm@olamb.UUCP (Kim Chr. Madsen) (11/03/86)
In article <242@apple.UUCP>, lenoil@apple.UUCP writes: > You are forgetting the converse argument. I want to read the Fidonet > newsletter. I do NOT want to read net.news. I would like a separate > newsgroup so that I can ignore the unwieldy amount of traffic that net.news > generates. > I don't care what arguments are used - just (re)move the Fidonet postings from net.{mail,news}. A mailing list would be good A newsgroup would be unsubscribable <Kim Chr. Madsen>